Sunday, October 15, 2017

Does the US Army and Marine Corps need the Iron Dome for peer vs peer warfare?

Between periods of watching the Saints body slam the Lions I've been thinking about capability gaps that the US Army and Marine Corps face on the upcoming battlefield of peer vs peer combat.

I keep circling back to artillery and aviation threats.

Even now I think it will be a VERY bloody affair but on the ground as currently constituted I think we can more than hold our own. Tanks, IFVs and Infantry I feel give us an adequate if not overwhelming advantage.

Its the enemy artillery and our ability to withstand the barrage that concerns.

Having said that I wonder if it isn't time for the USMC to reinvigorate its Air Defense Artillery Battalions and attach them to every Regiment. Of course the Army should do the same and as the lead agency I would hope that they would acquire systems that are modular enough to be used by the Corps.

In light of the cruise missile/ballistic missile threat maybe its time to bite the bullet and buy the Iron Dome. It's ready now, and even has a naval variant that can cover our landing forces/sea base. If we can decide on a proper high mobility platform then it can even cover gaps as we move toward the objective when we're out of range of naval coverage and haven't yet established ourselves on whatever target has been selected.

Yeah its Israeli but we can rename it to Iron Hammer, Deflector Shield or whatever will make the critics stop bleating like a bunch of frightened sheep.